Thursday, November 26, 2009

SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS

SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS:

Math, logic, and geometry teach us that we can derive and construct all manner of proofs” for falsehoods and confusions, simply by beginning our interrelations with one false axiom. The result is that we end up with parallel yet asymmetric models, which we try to make as internally consistent as possible, but which stubbornly resist unification or reconciliation between themselves.

Example: If physics rests on a basis that is independently real, then is that basis consistent with a model or theory of continuous fields and waves, or is it consistent with a theory of discrete particles and quanta? Is space-time continuous or is it granular?

Well, we struggle to reconcile such notions because we presume physics is real. But what if the higher reality is that physics is dependent and derivative of a relation with Something that is beyond physical measure, but not necessarily beyond adducement to mathematical consistency and intuition?

In “ultimate reality,” I intuit that each of us does not really exist as a separate and independent identity. Rather, each of us is a perspective of One higher consciousness, which itself finds expression by interacting within a meta information field, which Something actively and sequentially synchronizes to avail algorithmically controlling parameters upon experiences of its own perspectives and degrees of freedom.

Nevertheless, each perspective among us defends his or her sense of autonomous identity and perspective to the last breath. Each of us constructs, interprets, and interacts with his or her perspective of the “physical universe,” AS IF it were true that we are separate identities and that physics is independently real.

In doing so, the price is that we entertain asymmetrically fluxing and parallel models, which continuously evolve and morph and “progress,” as we try to make such models as internally consistent as possible, even as they stubbornly resist unification or reconciliation. That is, each “progressive” step towards unification of our “as if” models simply opens up new vistas for wonderment.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Re: "all temperature data for prior years have to be estimated by proxies such as a lake sediments, ice cores, boreholes, and tree rings. These proxies are then combined in complex computer programs."

Well, if it's scientific to pin donkey tails on proxies for donkeys, then we're all scientists now.

BTW, has the Pope gotten in on this scientific act? Do either the Catholic Church or Islamic Jihad ever tire of promoting policies that are calculated to keep humanity barefoot, pregnant, and under control of faux elites? Real Americans believe mankind is cut out to live more meaningfully than as ant pile kingdoms under the regulatory sway of faux elites and real sociopathic abusers. Here, I mean no judgment of Catholicism or Islamism as conceptual wholes. However, as to their population strategems, are they not more militantly invasive and de-humanizing than religous?

What is more de-humanizing than to foster p.c., speech codes, and hate crime regulations designed to curtail most avenues for human consciousness to communicate heartfelt thoughts and beliefs? What is more de-humanizing than to pressure married couples to avail no distinction between contraception and abortion, so as to avail no means for giving effect to conscious reason in making fundamental decisions about whether or when they are decently suited to raise children? What is more de-humanizing than to seek to reduce humanity to rule under aristocrats of faux-utopian ant-piles?

But here is the rub: If the Pope believes in Warming Philosophy (for it is certainly not "science"), then why is he so against the most obvious way to address it (contraception -- duh!), while still preserving human freedom and dignity apart from top-down ant-pile regulatory control by faux elites? Why does the Pope flirt with, if not embrace, Warmism Philosophy? Does such philosophy help rationalize top down control by elites?

Don't you just love inducements to staying barefoot, pregnant, and a debt slave, relying on "religiously enlightened intermediaries" to regulate how you should be receptive to God or Gaia? Mmm mmm.

Catholicism learned from Galileo that the science stove is not warm, but hot. Will it learn the same from the faux-Galileo stove?

Anonymous said...

French Taunting and Quest to Redeem Earth from Solar Warming: I sense opportunity here for Eddie Izzard to reprise Monty Python. Imagine a bit with Algore approaching yon castle, seeking knights to join his quest to redeem the planet from the nefarious sun. Then let French taunting ensue, that they already have the cure: Yes, it's called getting along with reality. "Le réalité et toi, vous ne vous entendez pas, n'est-ce pas?"